pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: rights managed microstock  (Read 15954 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 28, 2011, 07:19 »
0
Hi,

What do you guys think of rights managed images at microstock cost ?


« Reply #1 on: January 28, 2011, 07:20 »
0
no

« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2011, 07:21 »
0
no

and why not? it's for better photographer's protection

« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2011, 07:29 »
0
No and no!  ;D

« Reply #4 on: January 28, 2011, 07:30 »
0

« Reply #5 on: January 28, 2011, 07:36 »
0
As far as I know, all the microstock images are rights managed. Otherwise, why do we get extended licenses?

« Reply #6 on: January 28, 2011, 07:41 »
0
I don't want to see rights managed microstock.  I think it hasn't happened because there's more admin expenses for the sites and it really wouldn't work.  I like getting higher prices for my rights managed portfolio with alamy.

« Reply #7 on: January 28, 2011, 07:49 »
0
As far as I know, all the microstock images are rights managed. Otherwise, why do we get extended licenses?


Royalty free - no limits of projects being used. you can basically recycle it for as much time as you can as long as it doesn't exceeds number of usage

Rights managed - you can use the image per project

correct me if i'm wrong anyone.



I don't want to see rights managed microstock.  I think it hasn't happened because there's more admin expenses for the sites and it really wouldn't work.  I like getting higher prices for my rights managed portfolio with alamy.

well it's at the agency side.  i like alamy too. but it's very hard to sell there. at least for me.

RT


« Reply #8 on: January 28, 2011, 08:02 »
0
I can't see any microstock site selling rights managed images anytime soon, at least not at microstock prices - too hard to administer and too confusing for the occassional buyer(not to mention contributor), another issue is all that what would happen is a lot of the people already submitting images to microstock would just choose the RM license for the same type of content they're selling as RF which would be a negative issue for the sites concerned.

Microstock (and most probably iStock first) may come up with their own alternative but it 'won't be rights managed as we know it Jim'.
 

« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2011, 08:06 »
0
the people already submitting images to microstock would just choose the RM license for the same type of content they're selling as RF which would be a negative issue for the sites concerned.

Microstock (and most probably iStock first) may come up with their own alternative but it 'won't be rights managed as we know it Jim'.
 

Right, that's the same issue with people submitting same photos to micros & macros too

RT


« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2011, 08:26 »
0
Right, that's the same issue with people submitting same photos to micros & macros too

No it isn't, well not as long as they keep the same license type and abide with the sites policies.

jbarber873

« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2011, 08:30 »
0
   One of the reasons royalty free has taken off in the last 10 years has been the problem of dealing with the restrictions in a rights managed license. I have a lot of clients who are designers. In the past, if a designer does a job on behalf of a corporate client, they would purchase a RM license for that project, say an annual report. The problem comes in when the client takes ownership of the project, and continues to use it after the 1 year usage rights. Getty has been especially aggressive in tracking usages that are over the time limit , for instance if that annual report gets archived on the website. Unfortunately, the bill goes to the designer in many cases, and many designers lose the account to new competition without having any ready method to bill these usages to the client. Many of my clients have decided that going forward, they would only buy RF- whether it be microstock or RF through the big RM agencies. It's hard to get a corporate client to take responsibility for these costs otherwise. It used to be that a client wanted RM because they didn't want the same photo to show up in a competitors piece, but that has long since ceased to be a concern. Price trumps ownership every time. That's also why they don't hire photographers as much to shoot something that can be bought as stock. The microstock and RF revolution created such a cost disparity that once budgets get set with the new model, they will never go back to the old levels. RM is the past, not the future. Unless there is a very good premium attached to a RM sale, it doesn't make sense for the contributor to lock a file up for one sale, but the clients aren't interested in paying that premium, and taking the responsibility for renewing the license in the future. There are always those clients who will pay that price, of course, but the numbers are going down, not up.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2011, 08:36 »
0
Hi,
What do you guys think of rights managed images at microstock cost ?

Yes, I like the idea of Rights Managed but not in its current form for microstock.

RM is too complex for average buyers and the cost would need to be increased a lot to make up for the lower sales volume.

Plus, the images would need to be very unique otherwise why would anyone buy a $250 handshake over a $5 one.

I think micro needs a simplified usage based license that's based on time or a combo of time and size. This unlimited usage license is probably one reason so many people are saying their sales have plateaued. Designers build up a catalog of stock images and use the same ones over and over again with clients. This is especially true with subscription sites where it's basically encouraging buyers to hoard and stockpile images. The same telephone shot is probably on the Contact Us page of all 100 of a designer's client's websites. If it was usage based we would get compensated for all 100 images instead of 1. Plus, the move from paper to digital seems to be shifting the need to smaller images which means the size-based RF licensing may further contribute to the downward slide.

Not sure what the answer is but we need a new license model. And I don't think micro RF is sustainable :o for contributors with even low production costs over the long haul.  

« Reply #13 on: January 28, 2011, 08:53 »
0
i'm thinking of some targeting asian local niches where people can find affordable RM images per usage without time limits. there are just too much corporate cacuasians handshake images in RF.

« Reply #14 on: January 28, 2011, 09:01 »
0
As far as I know, all the microstock images are rights managed. Otherwise, why do we get extended licenses?


Royalty free - no limits of projects being used. you can basically recycle it for as much time as you can as long as it doesn't exceeds number of usage

Rights managed - you can use the image per project

correct me if i'm wrong anyone.

"as long as it doesn't exceed" limits on usage means that the rights are being managed to some degree.

RM images can also be used in every way that doesn't exceed the limits on usage, and not necessarily just for a single project. It all depends on the contract, as usual.

But I'm just being awkward.

The micros won't do highly restrictive licenses with time limits adjusted to the clients needs and scrutiny of the proposed usage to determine legality because they couldn't sell them for micro prices, which would need to be below the RF micro price.

« Reply #15 on: January 28, 2011, 09:08 »
0
I can't see any microstock site selling rights managed images anytime soon, at least not at microstock prices - too hard to administer and too confusing for the occassional buyer(not to mention contributor),

Exactly.  The overhead in making sure buyers are using or stopping the use per an RM type license would be prohibitive.

« Reply #16 on: January 28, 2011, 09:23 »
0
I can't see any microstock site selling rights managed images anytime soon, at least not at microstock prices - too hard to administer and too confusing for the occassional buyer(not to mention contributor),

Exactly.  The overhead in making sure buyers are using or stopping the use per an RM type license would be prohibitive.

I'm not sure they do scrutinise it to that degree, it would cause huge PR problems to want to go snooping around your customer's client's printing press. But they do engage in individual negotiation of details and, presumably, check that the required license conforms to legal usage. That requires staff interaction on a sale-by-sale basis, which costs money.

Add to that the requirement for RF imagery to sell at a lower price point than RM imagery (unless there are special exclusive usage rights, in which case it is the other way round) and it is patently impossible to do this on a micro basis.

I suppose you could automated the process by offering a range of specified usages, one country, one medium etc. at wildly different price-points but then you would probably run into widespread problems with people paying for the cheapest license and using the images as if they are RF.

We hardly need to undercut the pricing on the micros by offering cheaper, restricted use licenses, anyway.


« Reply #17 on: January 28, 2011, 09:42 »
0
...  (snip) ... RM is the past, not the future.

Exactly. Images are now abundant in supply and their value (unless the image is truly exceptional) does not justify the additional administration for RM.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #18 on: January 28, 2011, 10:52 »
0
Hi,
What do you guys think of rights managed images at microstock cost ?
The micros won't do it because the expense involved in administration would be very high. iStock can't even stay sustainable with the royalties they were  paying us last year.
On the other hand, Alamy's prices are falling to such an extent that a customer with a bulk discount deal can get an RM image for less than they could get an iStock EL (unless they had a big bulk discount deal at iStock).

« Reply #19 on: January 28, 2011, 10:56 »
0
Micro RM is a oxymoron.

« Reply #20 on: January 28, 2011, 10:58 »
0
Could you explain to me why I would want to sell and image for $10 and get a royalty of, say, $3, and then have the image removed from a site because it is RM?  Talk about a losing business model..

« Reply #21 on: January 28, 2011, 11:03 »
0
Could you explain to me why I would want to sell and image for $10 and get a royalty of, say, $3, and then have the image removed from a site because it is RM?  Talk about a losing business model..

You're associating RM erroneously with an exclusivity license.  That could be an option, but would obviously not be offered cheap.

« Reply #22 on: January 28, 2011, 11:22 »
0
Micro RM is a oxymoron.

Exactly.

« Reply #23 on: January 28, 2011, 11:27 »
0
...  (snip) ... RM is the past, not the future.

Exactly. Images are now abundant in supply and their value (unless the image is truly exceptional) does not justify the additional administration for RM.

yes, unless it's a certain niche market in asia.  and buyers just needs to tie the image to a specific usage when downloading.

« Reply #24 on: January 28, 2011, 11:28 »
0
Micro RM is a oxymoron.

Exactly.

give me a good explanation for that  ?  ;D

jbarber873

« Reply #25 on: January 28, 2011, 11:38 »
0
...  (snip) ... RM is the past, not the future.

Exactly. Images are now abundant in supply and their value (unless the image is truly exceptional) does not justify the additional administration for RM.

yes, unless it's a certain niche market in asia.  and buyers just needs to tie the image to a specific usage when downloading.

    The policing of RM images rights is difficult enough in an environment where there is widespread agreement on intellectual property rights. Trying to do so in Asia would be much more difficult. Microstock operates on a low cost model that precludes the costs associated with RM. As for a niche market, I think the example of "caucasian hands shaking" is a good one. But, that argues for you to supply the RF market ahead of the other 50,000 photographers who have the same idea. I don't believe those markets are right for RM, but they are indeed growing markets.

« Reply #26 on: January 28, 2011, 11:55 »
0
...  (snip) ... RM is the past, not the future.

Exactly. Images are now abundant in supply and their value (unless the image is truly exceptional) does not justify the additional administration for RM.

yes, unless it's a certain niche market in asia.  and buyers just needs to tie the image to a specific usage when downloading.

    The policing of RM images rights is difficult enough in an environment where there is widespread agreement on intellectual property rights. Trying to do so in Asia would be much more difficult. Microstock operates on a low cost model that precludes the costs associated with RM. As for a niche market, I think the example of "caucasian hands shaking" is a good one. But, that argues for you to supply the RF market ahead of the other 50,000 photographers who have the same idea. I don't believe those markets are right for RM, but they are indeed growing markets.

in that case , can't i just set a policy where a RM image downloaded can be used only once ? without any additional agreements on intellectual property rights or whatsever. 


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #27 on: January 28, 2011, 12:02 »
0

in that case , can't i just set a policy where a RM image downloaded can be used only once ? without any additional agreements on intellectual property rights or whatsever. 
How would you monitor this?
It's essentially unpoliceable.

« Reply #28 on: January 28, 2011, 12:08 »
0
RM = Rights Managed = The ability to monitor each and every sales of a image. A buyer may not need full rights but he may want to know where or how many times an image is being used so that he can judge whether to use it himself. Or he may decide to pay for some level of exclusivity. All this cost money to administer and all this adds to the value of an image -whether or not the image is of higher or lower or exactly the same quality of anything currently in RF or micro.

« Reply #29 on: January 28, 2011, 13:03 »
0
RM = Rights Managed = The ability to monitor each and every sales of a image.

That's only true if an image has only ever been available exclusively at one agency, with a guarantee from the photographer that it has never been used previously.
Some RM agencies do regard image exclusivity for this reason, others don't.

« Reply #30 on: January 28, 2011, 14:58 »
0
RM = Rights Managed = The ability to monitor each and every sales of a image.

That's only true if an image has only ever been available exclusively at one agency, with a guarantee from the photographer that it has never been used previously.
Some RM agencies do regard image exclusivity for this reason, others don't.
I understand your point and it is a little like trying define style. A perfect textbook definition is difficult. However without the essence of a Rights Managed image being somehow "managed" just makes it another RF image. Something needs to be managed, even if it's just price versus usage.

« Reply #31 on: January 28, 2011, 15:27 »
0
Micro RM is a oxymoron.

Exactly.

No it isn't !!  Micro refers to size (or price), while RM is a licence type !?

« Reply #32 on: January 28, 2011, 15:40 »
0
Something needs to be managed, even if it's just price versus usage.
That's what it is: they are controlling usage rights and fixing the price according to the required usage. Where the usage is very restricted, the price is generally lower than for RF. Where there are special privileges (sole rights in a territory) the price will be high.
Most RF licenses are bought with quite severe restrictions - there are time limits and the license may be for a use in single publication and in a single country. That's where the management comes in.

« Reply #33 on: January 28, 2011, 15:43 »
0

in that case , can't i just set a policy where a RM image downloaded can be used only once ? without any additional agreements on intellectual property rights or whatsever. 
How would you monitor this?
It's essentially unpoliceable.

Exactly.

In the ideal world, we could license an image for one-time use paying cheap (and that's what micro should be for, IMHO), but in the real world you can not enforce it, so why have this clause?

« Reply #34 on: January 28, 2011, 16:17 »
0
Micro RM is a oxymoron.

Exactly.

No it isn't !!  Micro refers to size (or price), while RM is a licence type !?

Micro is more than size or price, it is a license, or at least they try for there to be a license except that the images are often used in areas where they weren't licensed to. You can't have an RF/RM image anymore than you can have a micro RM image, it just doesn't make sense under the current marketing philosophy.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2011, 16:29 by Zeus »

« Reply #35 on: January 28, 2011, 16:52 »
0
Hi,

What do you guys think of rights managed images at microstock cost ?

I think it could work, but ONLY if your are managing the licenses yourself.  You are free to manage your own images and license them to whomever you want with whatever contract you decide.  If you know a buyer who can't afford Alamy's RM pricing, go ahead and negotiate your own lower price. 

It would never work as an agency concept, because of the cost of administration.  I mean, ask yourself...if you were iStock, would you be motivated to track down every usage on a RM image that only sold for a few bucks?  That wouldn't be cost effective.

« Reply #36 on: January 28, 2011, 16:53 »
0
Micro RM is a oxymoron.

Exactly.

No it isn't !!  Micro refers to size (or price), while RM is a licence type !?

Micro is more than size or price, it is a license, or at least they try for there to be a license except that the images are often used in areas where they weren't licensed to. You can't have an RF/RM image anymore than you can have a micro RM image, it just doesn't make sense under the current marketing philosophy.

That's incorrect.  RF and RM are types of licenses.  Micro and Macro are the payment methods.


« Reply #37 on: January 28, 2011, 17:07 »
0
That's incorrect.  RF and RM are types of licenses.  Micro and Macro are the payment methods.

????????? Like you pay me 20 macros. Or I use my Micro card?

« Reply #38 on: January 28, 2011, 17:28 »
0
Like macro > $100 and micro is less.  Don't confuse licensing terms with pricing.

« Reply #39 on: January 28, 2011, 20:46 »
0

in that case , can't i just set a policy where a RM image downloaded can be used only once ? without any additional agreements on intellectual property rights or whatsever.  
How would you monitor this?
It's essentially unpoliceable.

Exactly.

In the ideal world, we could license an image for one-time use paying cheap (and that's what micro should be for, IMHO), but in the real world you can not enforce it, so why have this clause?



Hi,

What do you guys think of rights managed images at microstock cost ?

It would never work as an agency concept, because of the cost of administration.  I mean, ask yourself...if you were iStock, would you be motivated to track down every usage on a RM image that only sold for a few bucks?  That wouldn't be cost effective.



Well, obviously you can't. It's purely based on terms and agreements.  I believe there are a lot of abuses in micros impressions usages too where ELs are not purchased. obviously no one can monitor all those. but hey, nothing is perfect ,the idea is to plant some trees instead of burning the entire forest. Not everyone is doing it but someone is  ;D

maybe i should come up with a new term if i want to start something like that.

"Limited Right managed" = This image can be used once per download only.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2011, 20:53 by yuliang11 »

« Reply #40 on: January 28, 2011, 20:51 »
0
because of the cost of administration.  I mean, ask yourself...if you were iStock, would you be motivated to track down every usage on a RM image that only sold for a few bucks?  That wouldn't be cost effective.

At inmagine you can actually set the price of right managed photos where you can actually set it to 1 USD.

« Reply #41 on: January 29, 2011, 04:05 »
0
Like macro > $100 and micro is less. 

I wish. My last RM sale was for $45, leaving me $27 in commission. Rather like a Shutterstock EL. I think that less than $100 is now quite normal for Alamy, seven of my last eight L (RM) sales there have been for less than $100. One was for $24 and only left about $11 after deductions.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
33 Replies
24859 Views
Last post November 09, 2015, 13:56
by wordplanet
8 Replies
22187 Views
Last post September 11, 2017, 23:28
by stockload
4 Replies
1374 Views
Last post January 01, 2020, 13:13
by HughStoneIan
1 Replies
2933 Views
Last post January 14, 2021, 19:35
by MatHayward
1 Replies
2509 Views
Last post July 23, 2021, 06:42
by PaulieWalnuts

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle